Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3938 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

one is not doing the job and, secondly, that the alternative process that they suggest will do it better. Their course of action to achieve that, of course, is to move amendments to the legislation - to change the process of consultation if they do not think it is working. To do it by this sort of backdoor amendment to a motion as to what the Planning Committee might do is not the way to change the legal processes.

Secondly, they obviously have not read the terms of reference of the Planning Committee, although one of them sits on it. I have them in front of me, and nowhere is there the question of the committee monitoring anything. The committee's explicit terms of reference are to examine matters related to a wide range of issues and to inquire into and report on matters. I do not think it is the role of any standing committee of this Assembly to sit idle for months on end and simply monitor what somebody else is doing. I cannot imagine any greater waste of time. I do agree with the committee examining issues that are of concern to the public. That is within its terms of reference. That is what Mr Moore's motion would have the committee do, and that is what I support. I do not think I need say anything further than that. I think the Greens have got it wrong. They should take the trouble to find out what the proper process is and to establish the fact that it is a process established by law, not something that can be arbitrarily changed by motion on the floor of the house in this fashion. They should look to see what are the purposes of the committees that they sit on. This is not some fanciful thing that you can change at will.

Quite frankly, I am satisfied that the process that is taking place in connection with Ainslie is perfectly legitimate and perfectly satisfactory. There has been public consultation. That consultation will continue. There is no firm proposal and no commitment for the Government at this stage to do anything. The Government is merely doing what it ought to do, and that is recognising that there is a need for some redevelopment in Ainslie and examining what the options are. That is what the Government is doing. It is doing it by the proper processes. It is doing it with full community consultation. I do not know what more the Greens can ask for.

Furthermore, and as a final point, Ms Horodny, as a member of the Planning Committee, is constantly asking the committee to take on inquiries as case studies. Here is a great case study for her - to do what Mr Moore suggests. She can use it as a case study, analyse the process, analyse the consultation process as part of the committee's deliberations, and at the end of it we can make some judgment about whether we think that in this case the community consultation process is working properly. If we conclude that it is, the committee will make no recommendation on the matter. If the committee is satisfied that the public consultation process is not working in accordance with the requirement that is prescribed by law or that it is ineffective, I am quite sure that the committee is capable of putting forward a recommendation to the Government that the law be changed. Why the Greens would want to work through any other process outside of that framework is beyond me. I do not know what they expect to achieve. I repeat that I support Mr Moore's motion, and I oppose the fanciful amendment that has been put forward by the Greens.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .